5 Thoughts on the Cross and Substitutionary Atonement

What is Substitutionary Atonement?

Atonement means “reparation for a wrong or injury.” (Oxford). “Substitutionary” refers to the idea that someone took our place in this reparation and accomplished it for us. 

Theologically speaking, Substitutionary Atonement (sometimes referred to as Penal Substitution) is a theory of how Jesus Christ’s atonement on the cross for us was accomplished by him taking our place and being punished for our sins. 

There are other facets to the diamond of atonement theology but Substitutionary Atonement (from now on “SA”) is of such importance and so deeply Biblical that all “other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.” (Thomas Schreiner)

SA has come under much fire in recent years for being too violent of an idea. Some have even called it “cosmic child abuse.” In this blog post we will look at SA from perspectives of the Bible, Church History, the Chronicles of Narnia and the Trinity. 

Raising of the Cross by Rembrandt.  The artist paints himself in the scene as one who is helping crucify Jesus. Jesus will pay his sin debt on the cross.

In the Bible 

“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:5-6

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit…” 1 Peter 3:18

Throughout the Old and New Testament SA is clearly and repeatedly taught.  In addition to many specific verses or passages there is also a uniting theme within Scripture of this teaching (See these Scripture references as an example: Gen 3:20, Ex 12, Isaiah 53, Rom 3:23-26. 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 3:13, Heb 9:26, 1 Pet 2:24). 

In Church History

Many have taught that the teaching of SA is foreign to the early church; however, upon further observation there is ample evidence to support the teaching of SA throughout church history.

It is true that Anslem (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109) taught the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement which was very influential on later Reformers who taught Penal Substitution. Looking further back, however, reveals that the idea of substitution at the cross was hardly new to him.  

Gavin Ortlund argues that Irenaeus (130-202 AD) also taught elements of substitution (along with recapitulation) as well as Athanasius (c. 296/298 – 373 AD). We can also see that Augustine and others taught substitution. 

“But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which needs be paid; For, as I said before, all men were due to die… that... He (Jesus) might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering his own temple (body) to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression.”        

(Athanasius, quoted in Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals p. 167)

C.S. Lewis and Narnia

When the Christ-figure, Aslan, dies by the hand of the White Witch in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia many claim that this was no substitution but rather a kind of payment to the Witch (who represents Satan). But let’s look closer at Lewis’ story:

“You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill… Unless I have blood, as the Law says, all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”  (The White Witch from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe). 

Gavin Ortlund comments: “From this passage it is clear that the Deep Magic is a good creation of Aslan’s father, the emperor across the sea, i.e. God the Father… While it is certainly true that the witch insists upon sacrifice, her insistence derives its power only from the emperor’s magic (the Law), which is acknowledged by Aslan as well as the witch.” 

Aslan’s death is “more fundamentally a satisfaction of the emperor’s Deep Magic.” (Quoted in Ortlund, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals p. 182, 183)

God was in Christ - the Trinity

Many critics of SA say that it is not fair or loving that God the Father took out His wrath against sin on Jesus the Son. What they miss here is the implications of the Trinity. Jesus was a not some random third party being punished. 

Christians believe that there is one God but that he exists in three persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). Each person is equal to the other and together they exist in harmony as the one true God.  

So, it was not simply God the Father objectively punishing God the Son - but rather that all three persons of the Trinity decided on this plan of redemption and then executed that plan. Hebrews 9:14 speaks of all three persons of the Trinity working at the cross: 

“…how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” 

2 Corinthians 5:19 clarifies that God was there at the cross: 

“…that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” 

“The doctrine of the Trinity means that on the cross, as John Stott puts it, we see the “self-substitution of God.” (Tim Keller, Forgive p. 97)

See also Daniel Hames “3 Reasons I changed My Mind About Penal Substitution”

9 Principles for Understanding the Old Testament

The Old Testament can often seem a bit confusing and harsh. Even as a Christian, I’ve certainly struggled with some of the passages in the OT and I think many others do as well.  I hope this blog helps us better understand the Old Testament in light of context, culture and the finished work of Christ. 

Much of this has been inspired by Paul Copan’s book on the topic*.

1) We have to remember that the ideal vision of God was always that of the Garden of Eden. The Fall of humanity (after their rebellion against God) shattered everything good. Everything after the Fall was basically a process of God working with sinful humanity to get them back to that ideal. This will eventually happen in the New Heaven and the New Earth (ultimately because of the work of Christ). 

2) One of the most important principles to understand is that of the distinction between the Old Covenant (or Testament) and the New Covenant (or Testament). The Old must be read with the eyes of the New or else we will never really grasp it. 

The Mosaic Covenant (i.e. the Law) is described in the Bible as inferior to the New. Through His work on the cross Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law. Much of the Law (the ceremonies and civic rules) do not apply to us anymore. The Ten Commandments are now written in our hearts and we are aided to keep them by grace, faith and the power of the Holy Spirit

3) Although some of the laws of Moses seem very harsh to us, we have to realize that the Ancient Near East (of which Israel was a part of) was a brutal culture far removed from today’s western society. In contrast to the laws of the surrounding culture, the laws of Moses were less harsh and valued the dignity of human life much more. 

4) The New Testament says that the Law of Moses was a tutor to bring us to Christ. However, even before the Law was given, Abraham was proclaimed righteous by faith and grace (Romans 4:16, Gal 3:18).  OT people were still ultimately saved by faith and grace.

5) In Matthew 19:8 we read Jesus’s words: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Herein is a principle whereby we understand that God sometimes accommodates humanity in their sinful condition but it wasn’t that way in the beginning and God will not leave them there (for Jesus clarifies this in the New Testament). 

6) Just because something is recorded in the OT does not necessarily mean it is endorsed by God.  If we think of some of the atrocities committed in the Book of Judges, we can see that this was a record of history not a prescription on how to live. 

7) The language of the OT and of the Ancient Near East (ANE) must be considered as well. Hyperbole (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) were in common use in the ANE. For example, the OT describes the total annihilation (men, women and children) of the Canaanites and yet it also records that the Canaanites continued to live in the land after this war. It’s a bit like one sports team saying they ‘utterly destroyed’ another team – we understand this to be hyperbole.  

Another note – when God judges in the OT it is not in regard to ethnicity but in regard to sin.  God judges both Israel and the surrounding nations in measure of their sin.

8) It is ironic that we in the modern West look down our noses so much at Judeo (and even Christian) ethics and values when, in fact, our society was really built on them. We certainly do not live under the OT anymore but even in the OT those ethics and values were forming.

9) It often seems like God is very harsh and judgemental in the OT. It helps to remember that God is gracious and merciful and only judges when greatly provoked. “As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?” Ezekiel 33:11

We must also realize that in Jesus we also see the true nature of God. He is the perfect image of what God is truly like (“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9). So look to Jesus. 

• “Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God” by Paul Copan Copyright 2011 by Baker Books.  Although the title sounds somewhat alarming this is actually a claim made by the New Atheists who mock God. Paul Copan answers this claim well in the book. 

The Logos and the Gospel

In the first verse of his Gospel, John the Apostle uses a striking word, full of meaning and recognizable to any Greek person at that time.   

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

John’s “Word” is translated from the original Greek “Logos”.

Dane Ortlund explains that the term “Logos”: “…referred in Greek thinking to Reason with a capital ‘R’, the great organizing principle of the universe, the impersonal rationality behind all that happens, that which injects coherence and stability into the universe.”  

John purposely uses this pregnant word to describe Jesus Christ. He was stating that this all-powerful Logos was not just an “organizing principle” but very creator God.  

Furthermore, much of Greek philosophy thought that there was a major distinction between what is material and what is spiritual. The material was evil and the spiritual was good – and never the twain shall meet. 

John shocks them again when he says in verse 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”

Here in a stunning and counterintuitive move, the Logos (that which is spiritual) came to earth and took on flesh and blood (that which is material).  This was no “impersonal rationality” but a very personal God. Such a notion would wreak havoc and wonder on the understanding of the day. 

“The Greeks wished to shed the flesh and fly up to heaven; John says that heaven put on flesh and came down to earth.” (Ortlund). 

Not only is this Logos the creator God but he has also taken on flesh and dwelt with humanity – and would soon suffer, die and rise again to redeem them.  

John takes an enormous Greek thought and uses it to share the Gospel of Jesus in a thrilling manner.  In this gospel, the Logos is far more than a principle, He is a Person; not just a rationality but a Redeemer.

5 Facts about Marc Andre Leclerc and the First Solo Ascent of the Emperor’s Face (Mount Robson)

 

Heads up - The following contains spoilers for “The Alpinist”.

 

 

Mt. Robson's Emperor Face at twilight. Berg Lake, Mt. Robson Provincial Park, B.C. [Photo] Jeffrey Pang/Wiki Commons

 

The Man

Marc Andre Leclerc was born in Nanaimo, BC on October 10^th, 1992 and died in Alaska in 2018. During his brief life he gained a reputation as an unassuming yet fearless mountain climber. He was especially known for his free solo (no ropes) ascents of many peaks around the world.  His life is the subject of the 2020 film, “The Alpinist”.

 

The Mountain

Mount Robson rises nearly 10,000 feet above the Yellowhead highway for a total of 12, 972 feet (3,954 M) above sea level. It’s Emperor’s Face stands tall at about 8,000 feet of ice, rock and snow. 

The Emperor’s Face was first ascended by climbers in 1978 but had never been free climbed solo by anyone until Leclerc.  In 2002 Barry Blanchard and 2 other climbers ascended the route known as “Infinite Patience”.  Leclerc would eventually follow this same line up the face.

 

The Reason

“I was being drawn toward the mountain in a search for adventure, by a desire to explore my own limitations and to also be immersed in a world so deeply beautiful that it would forever be etched into my memory.” Marc Andre Leclerc

After getting to know the Canadian Rockies by climbing in Alberta for a time, Leclerc felt he was ready for Mount Robson and it’s Emperor’s Face. In April of 2016, he hopped on a bus out of Jasper back towards his native British Columbia.

He later commented: “When the bus dropped me off on the side of the highway, I saw Mt. Robson for the first time. It towered above the road like no other mountain I'd ever seen. The summit felt incredibly distant, as if it were located on another planet.”

 

No Limelight

Leclerc had never liked the spotlight. He simply didn’t care if anyone knew what amazing things he was accomplishing.  In fact, he had actually been filming The Alpinist with directors Peter Mortimer and Nick Rosen, when he abruptly “disappeared” from the filmmakers and went off on his own.  

It was during this hiatus that Leclerc climbed the Emperor’s Face.  He later explained to the directors that it just didn’t feel like a solo attempt if other people were there – even if they were just filming. He eventually agreed to do the climb again in order for them to capture it.

 

The Summit

Leclerc used the Infinite Patience route to summit the mountain. On his first climb of the face he made it to the top and later wrote - “I stumbled onto the top of Mt. Robson at sunset, and was rewarded with a breathtaking view: snow and ice extended as far I could see in all directions. Robson seemed to be so much taller than any of the surrounding peaks— it was like a platform in the sky that looked down on the rest of the world.”

Leclerc had to sleep on top of the summit due to weather conditions where he endured a miserable night of freezing cold winds and little sustenance but eventually made it down safely to ensure the first ever free solo climb of Mount Robson’s Emperor’s Face.

For a description of the ascent in Marc Andre’s own words see this Alpinist article.

“I'm happy to say that my visit with the Emperor was a truly special experience. At first I was intimidated by his strong aura, but in the end we became friends and the King generously shared his wealth, leaving me a much richer person.” Marc Andre Leclerc